GT300 Benchmarks

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: linkgoron
I'd say that there's a bigger chance that if these benches are accurate you'll start dancing and throw a party than the chance that people will mourn for their lost soul.

I'd like to go to that...maybe they'll hand out free GT300 samples or at least mockups.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: linkgoron

If you agree why did you post this thread at all?

Because it's far more plausible than the 100's of charlie rumors that get posted.

Seeing the reaction from the "zoners" and how they want to drive any positive news about NVIDIA and any NVIDIA fan out of the forum, is sad though.

 

[videogames101]

This thread serves no purpose.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Presumably NV knew well enough to factor all this into their post-GT200b plans, I think this much we can safely assume they are fully capable of doing.

Performance target-wise, I can't imagine an easier thing for NV to have assumed AMD would do with their Cypress-gen chip other than to just assume at a minimum it would be a 2xRV770 performance-level for the single-GPU product (and doubled-up again for the comparable X2 SKU).

So again I think that while we don't know what the performance target was for Fermi during the past years I don't see their internal competitive assessment efforts as being surprised by what AMD fielded this fall, which would imply that Fermi's designed performance target is probably not going to be a surprise (to the downside) either.

Does any one here really think NV designed Fermi in a vacuum to the considerations that it either needs to be harvestable for cut-down SKU's or that there was a parallel Fermi Jr chip developed alongside it that natively has fewer SP's just as Cypress vs. Juniper was done? These guys are pros, we are just armchair analysts here, piss-poor ones at that I might add.

While all this is quite logical and agreeable, lets not forget that the 4870 was twice the performance of the 3870 and NV was caught with its pants down, although more in price than raw performance.

So, while it is quite a safe bet to expect GT300 to beat the 5870 in performance, it is equal legitimate to question if the fact that its a new architecture, needs to be DX11 compatible and it is made on a new process (and while NV has some 40nm parts they are significantly less complex than the GT200b much less the GT300) won't affect the performance relation it existed on the previous generation.

Much of the new architectural changes do need to be tested in real applications and games.

Look at those leaked 5870 (and were those legit AMD?) benchmarks - showed higher performance than the GTX295 and it seemed quite legit, since the 5870 was 2xRV770 and fell a tiny bit short.

Until we see a legit bench, well, it is all speculation, one way or the other.

Originally posted by: videogames101
This thread serves no purpose.

It does.

It changes the focus of the last threads popping out on this forum.

On the other hand, it also reminds everyone that the GT300 is still MIA and the physical evidences of it are a mock-up card and some youtube "leaked benchmarks".

As the zen master would say "we'll see".

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

While all this is quite logical and agreeable, lets not forget that the 4870 was twice the performance of the 3870 and NV was caught with its pants down, although more in price than raw performance.

How was NVIDIA caught with their pants down? The GTX280 was a great deal faster and they outsold ATI 2:1

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Anyone remember ATI and the associated fanboys of said company did exactly this same thing? Made up numbers with no machine specs or in game settings information published with a few bar graphs showing a 5870 to be significantly faster than the GTX295? That didn't pan out exactly as the rumors and fake graphs depicted. This is no different. It means nothing to get upset about it. No need to get worked up.

I did a partial post-analysis of those graphs by trying to find reviewers who used the same settings in some of the games, and many of the bars were pretty spot on (in the 5870 vs. GTX285). However some of the more exaggerated ones showing twice the performance are difficult to debunk, as they are special cases that reviewers usually don't do. The way the graph was presented (starting at the 80% mark and not 0%) is what seemed to skew results, but the actual results seemed to come from real data for those who actually know how to read a damn graph.

Whether or not this same thing is happening here is in question.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10xKBSEEvwQ

Not sure how accurate those benchmarks are, but if they are true. :shocked:

Deleted.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

While all this is quite logical and agreeable, lets not forget that the 4870 was twice the performance of the 3870 and NV was caught with its pants down, although more in price than raw performance.

How was NVIDIA caught with their pants down? The GTX280 was a great deal faster and they outsold ATI 2:1

Sorry, I come from a planet where a graphics card that costed $649 dropped some $50 a couple of weeks later, one that costed $400 dropped to $300 and $300 card dropped to $199 overnight but forgive me, I'm an alien and I though "and NV was caught with its pants down, although more in price than raw performance" was understandable.

And are you saying that NV did sell 2 GTX 280 per 4870 sold?

 

[Grooveriding]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

While all this is quite logical and agreeable, lets not forget that the 4870 was twice the performance of the 3870 and NV was caught with its pants down, although more in price than raw performance.

How was NVIDIA caught with their pants down? The GTX280 was a great deal faster and they outsold ATI 2:1

'great deal faster' ? Not really, I went from a 4870 to a GTX285, sure it was faster, but it was only really noticeable in Crysis. Everywhere else it was not a huge 'wow' factor jump. Nowhere near as impressive as a jump as going from my 285 to a 5870 was....

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Something about prices.

Should they have dropped their price before the 4800 came out.

That would make no sense.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

I still don't get why everyone just assumes that gt300 > 5870. If nvidia could produce a card, even a highly flawed one, TODAY that was even 1% faster than 5870 then it would already be on store shelves.

Isn't the GTX295 already on store shelves? Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not at least 1% faster then the 5870 overall?

nVidia has their own internal design goals to hit with the GT300. What ATi does will influence price points and model designation, but the odds of them abandoning a design that was years in the making because they could ship something lesser that would edge out the competition by small margins in benchmarks doesn't make for a sound long term approach. Better they deal with getting the design as intended and then figuring out where to position the card. Obviously their goal is faster then 5870 for single GPU comparisons, but they are also well aware of the fact that ATi is going to counter with a x2. Given the complexity and yield issues they are currently dealing with, not likely that they are going to be able to quickly push out a counter to that. Better for them to get their ducks in a row before coming out.

A late GPU is late until it ships. A bad GPU is bad forever.

Could it be that nV was too aggressive and moved node and changed design at the same time.

nV has been fabbing 40nm parts for a while now, they have just been shipping them to OEMs instead of retail channels(although they are showing up now). I think they pushed it a bit too close though, they should have let 40nm mature a bit more(TSMC being a bit behind was an issue there)- tick tock doesn't work out that great if you only get ~a month between the process move and the architecture swap.

if you had to purchase a new high end card today, would you buy a gtx 295? Actually, I guess you might, but the vast majority of non-biased individuals would go red atm.

You knew that I meant a gt300 card that was faster than 5870, not a dual gpu, dx10, hot, overpriced holdover from last gen. By the way, I think that you're wrong. Nvidia has shown time and time again that they'll shovel shit down our throats if they think that they can get away with it. If they could bring out a dx11 gpu right now that outperformed 5870 it would already be here. They could always come up with a refresh once they ironed out all the bugs. I agree with your assertion that they were too aggressive with the 40nm rollout, in fact, that is probably their major issue right now. In order for their yields to be acceptable they have to disable too many clusters and/or drop clocks too low. It is looking more and more like amd's small ball strategy is superior to nvidia's "build the fastest no matter what" philosophy. Of course, that won't stop me from buying a gtx 360 if it's priced right when I'm going through my next upgrade ...

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: bimmerboy
if the gtx 295 was good enough, why are nv fans looking at these benches at all... if its the fastest card then why care who's the fastest single if it doesnt matter and games dont need it...
thats what i've read. they dont need to upgrade to a faster gpu because no games need it. besides competition of another card seems to be another motive. so why cling so hard to who's faster if you just want competition.

But the GTX295 wasn't necessarily good enough. A great performing card no doubt, but it's not like it could max out every game at 2560x1600 with full AA and butter smooth FPS, nothing could. Theres always better performance to be had. Even if a current solution can play all current games maxed out, there will undoubtedly be a stream of more demanding games coming down theline every day (although that has admittedly slowed in recent years, with so much being console ports)


The advantage of new gen cards vs older gen cards of comparable performance is that the newer card will almost always offer that same level of performance at lower power/thermal thresholds, and often cheaper

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

While all this is quite logical and agreeable, lets not forget that the 4870 was twice the performance of the 3870 and NV was caught with its pants down, although more in price than raw performance.

How was NVIDIA caught with their pants down? The GTX280 was a great deal faster and they outsold ATI 2:1

Yeah, tell that to the steam survey;

All Videocards

HD 4800 series___________7.89%_______+0.43%
GTX series_______________5.93%_______+0.86

DX10 GPU's

HD 4800 series________11.46%________+0.38
GTX series ____________8.61%________+0.37

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Sorry, I come from a planet where a graphics card that costed $649 dropped some $50 a couple of weeks later, one that costed $400 dropped to $300 and $300 card dropped to $199 overnight but forgive me, I'm an alien and I though "and NV was caught with its pants down, although more in price than raw performance" was understandable.

And are you saying that NV did sell 2 GTX 280 per 4870 sold?

He's from another planet, nVidialand

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Should they have dropped their price before the 4800 came out.

That would make no sense.

You don't make sense.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
Something about prices.

Should they have dropped their price before the 4800 came out.

That would make no sense.

Engineering has several types of achievements.

An example of those achievements is to achieve something that until then was impossible, no matter the cost.

Another, maybe less impressive in "wow factor" but probably even more useful example, is turning something that is too expensive/complicated/etc into something cheap/simple/etc.

If NV dropped the prices of its cards was because their performance wasn't so superior.

In fact, the 4870 has, on average, 85-90% the performance of a GTX280 and most importantly, if the GTX280 is playable at some given settings, so is the 4870.

Actually, as the time went, that gap became smaller, with the 4890 being even closer to the GTX285, especially with 4xAA/8xAA.

While selling more is the objective (actually it is making money), that doesn't mean the products being sold are a better value than their competition - but actually that is irrelevant, because, even without hard data, I suspect the difference between sales of the 4870/4890 and GTX280/GTX285 isn't 1:2. Actually the GTX280/285 sold a lot less than their cheaper GTX260/275 counterparts, which given the price difference is quite logical.

Talking about financials of companies is quite interesting, but when discussing the merits of an hardware product, what you need to evaluate is the performance, price, power consumption, especially when they have more products than just those being discussed.

 

[yh125d]

And yeah I've seen nothing to suggest that next gen 5xxx/GT300 performance heirarchy will be that much different from this gen. something ala

5850~GTS350 < 5870/GTX360 < 5850x2~GTX380 <5870x2 <GTX395

There might be a 5890/5900 card added somewhere which would probably be slightly under or above GTX380 - that will require more time to speculate much on

Theres not much doubt from anyone that nvidia will have the single GPU and multi GPU performance crown again. The hurdles this gen for nvidia will probably be 1. Getting their products out the door, since they're already a couple weeks behind and don't look to be showing up to the party before Christmas if by the new year, 2. Getting GTX360 to outperform 5870 - This gen 4870/260 was kind of a wash, overall they were about the same performance, for about the same price. Nvidia has a large market of mid-high end and entry level sli/xfire enthusiasts they can win over if GTX360 either outperforms 5870 or outcheaps it, and 3. Getting a decent low end lineup. This gen they had leftover 9600GSO/9600GT/9800GT/9800GTX they could recycle for the <$125 segment but I think they've stretched those designs about as far as they can go. I would love to see a proper mid/mid-low range card or cards from nvidia. If they can repeat the great success they had with the beloved 6600gt/7600gt/8800gt (I've owned one of each, two 8800s ...) they will win this gen imo. I'll be quite disappointed if they just recycle G92 again. The 90nm roots of G80 shrunk to 40nm is not the way they should go

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

While all this is quite logical and agreeable, lets not forget that the 4870 was twice the performance of the 3870 and NV was caught with its pants down, although more in price than raw performance.

they outsold ATI 2:1

I cringe whenever someone uses this logic. Not just for GPUs, but for anything. By this logic, back in the athlon 64 days, when intel still had the vast majority of market share would you be saying the P4 was a much better processor cause they sold so many more? :\

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Yeah, tell that to the steam survey;

All Videocards

HD 4800 series___________7.89%_______+0.43%
GTX series_______________5.93%_______+0.86

DX10 GPU's

HD 4800 series________11.46%________+0.38
GTX series ____________8.61%________+0.37

Really? We compare GTX series without the 9800 which competes with the lower end 4800 series to the entire 4800 series? You're just as bad as the op.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Yeah, tell that to the steam survey;

All Videocards

HD 4800 series___________7.89%_______+0.43%
GTX series_______________5.93%_______+0.86

DX10 GPU's

HD 4800 series________11.46%________+0.38
GTX series ____________8.61%________+0.37

Really? We compare GTX series without the 9800 which competes with the lower end 4800 series to the entire 4800 series? You're just as bad as the op.

The only HD 4800 series that competes with the lower end nVidia cards is the HD 4830 and the HD 4850, the remaining is the HD 4870 which competes with the GTX 260+, HD 4890 which competes with the GTX 275, the HD 4850X2 which competes with the GTX 285 and the HD 4870X2 which competes with the GTX 295.

The only 9800 series that's competitive with the low end HD 4800 series or the ill fated HD 4770 is the 9800GTX+ (Which came much earlier than the HD 4x00 series) and the GTS 250, but Wreckage and me were talking about the entire GTX vs HD 48x0 series lineup as a whole and not in segmentation perse, is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Yeah, tell that to the steam survey;

All Videocards

HD 4800 series___________7.89%_______+0.43%
GTX series_______________5.93%_______+0.86

DX10 GPU's

HD 4800 series________11.46%________+0.38
GTX series ____________8.61%________+0.37

Really? We compare GTX series without the 9800 which competes with the lower end 4800 series to the entire 4800 series? You're just as bad as the op.

The only HD 4800 series that competes with the lower end nVidia cards is the HD 4830 and the HD 4850, the remaining is the HD 4870 which competes with the GTX 260+, HD 4890 which competes with the GTX 275, the HD 4850X2 which competes with the GTX 285 and the HD 4870X2 which competes with the GTX 295.

The only 9800 series that's competitive with the low end HD 4800 series or the ill fated HD 4770 is the 9800GTX+ and the GTS 250 which sold well, but Wreckage and me were talking about the entire GTX vs HD 48x0 series lineup as a whole and not market segmentation perse, is that so hard for you to understand?

So did you or did you not compare the numbers for the entire 4800 series to just the higher end cards from nvidias current lineup. Squirm all you want and try to make excuses about what you were "talking about" but what you posted were straight numbers with a fanboys slant. That this has been pointed out in every other thread where those numbers were posted only makes you look even more like the op.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
So did you or did you not compare the numbers for the entire 4800 series to just the higher end cards from nvidias current lineup. Squirm all you want and try to make excuses about what you were "talking about" but what you posted were straight numbers with a fanboys slant. That this has been pointed out in every other thread where those numbers were posted only makes you look even more like the op.

Whatever you say Wreckage, I mean, Ayashiwhateveritmeans, at least my data is real and comes from reliable sources, unlike Wreckage's FUD, believe what you want to believe and keep on with your own self denial. I'm done with you.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
So did you or did you not compare the numbers for the entire 4800 series to just the higher end cards from nvidias current lineup. Squirm all you want and try to make excuses about what you were "talking about" but what you posted were straight numbers with a fanboys slant. That this has been pointed out in every other thread where those numbers were posted only makes you look even more like the op.

Whatever you say Wreckage, I mean, Ayashiwhateveritmeans, at least my data is real and comes from reliable sources, unlike Wreckage's FUD, believe what you want to believe and keep on with your own self denial. I'm done with you.

lol run and hide I see. Ignoring all coins that land heads I flip tails 100% of the time. I post real data you see, and people should consider this meaningful in the context of discussions.

 

[GaiaHunter]

The numbers, both the total market share and ignoring the 9800GTX/GTX+/GTS250, to argument on the success (or lack of it) of GT200 vs RV770, are somewhat abusive reads.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

While all this is quite logical and agreeable, lets not forget that the 4870 was twice the performance of the 3870 and NV was caught with its pants down, although more in price than raw performance.

they outsold ATI 2:1

I cringe whenever someone uses this logic. Not just for GPUs, but for anything. By this logic, back in the athlon 64 days, when intel still had the vast majority of market share would you be saying the P4 was a much better processor cause they sold so many more? :\

Except that in this case NVIDIA not only won marketshare but also benchmarks.

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu


lol run and hide I see. .

Notice how he also ignores the front page of the steam survey which shows NVIDIA 2:1 over ATI.

It's sad really.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

While all this is quite logical and agreeable, lets not forget that the 4870 was twice the performance of the 3870 and NV was caught with its pants down, although more in price than raw performance.

they outsold ATI 2:1

I cringe whenever someone uses this logic. Not just for GPUs, but for anything. By this logic, back in the athlon 64 days, when intel still had the vast majority of market share would you be saying the P4 was a much better processor cause they sold so many more? :\

Except that in this case NVIDIA not only won marketshare but also benchmarks.

No I'm not meaning to refute that at all, I just hate that logic because its so often misused in other cases

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Notice how he also ignores the front page of the steam survey which shows NVIDIA 2:1 over ATI.

It's sad really.

Yeah, you are sad, as if the 2:1 nVidia market share advantage were because of the sales of the GTX series LOLL, pity. ATi HD 4x00 series simply outsold the GTX, period. It helped ATi to retain its market share, not to gain more or loose more. Most of nVidia market share in DX10 GPU's comes from punny 8600 series or lower which there is where the money and market share is done, in the low end and OEM market, not with overpriced junk like the GTX 295.

PS; The only winnings that I see is an HD 5870 in Crossfire

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3643&p=27

"Having the fastest single-GPU card makes the 5870 in Crossfire the fastest dual-GPU solution by far. Unfortunately we didn?t have a chance to benchmark a GTX 295 Quad SLI setup, but given the notoriously finicky nature of Quad SLI and Quad Crossfire, we?re comfortable calling the 5870 CF the better multi-GPU solution."